MOHAMMED IQBAL KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 22 (2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3132/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 June 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3131 & 3132/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mohammad Iqbal Khan 101, Moru Sadan Swami Vivekananda Road Santa Cruz Mumbai-400054 [PAN: ACDPK8308C] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) Vs ACIT, Circle – 22(2) प्रत्यर्थी/ (Respondent) Assessee by: None Revenue by : Ms. Kavita Kaushik, Sr. D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 16/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 18/06/20251 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals for want of evidence without affording adequate opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee preferred two appeals against orders passed by the NFAC pertaining to Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The appeals dealt with additions on account of commission income and investment. The assessee did not appear before the Tribunal, and the case proceeded ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals for want of evidence without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE

Hearing: 16/06/2025Pronounced: 18/06/2025

O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: & 3132/Mum/2025 are two separate appeals by the assessee preferred against two separate orders dt. 04/03/2025 by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter “the ld. CIT(A)”] pertaining to AY 2013-14 and 2014-15.

2.

Since common grievance is involved in both the appeals, they were heard together and are disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

3.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of notices. We decided to proceed ex-parte. The ld. D/R was heard at length. Case records carefully perused.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →